What I Would Like to See From the PPA (and 2+2)

[hollaballa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However as noted above, those persons need to clearly state who they are representing, instead of trying to maintain the fiction that a writer for CP magazine isn't a representative of CP. Thus I would think Allyson Jaffrey Schulman, who is also an attorney, would be a legitimate member of the board, as she does have something to contribute, and also will clearly be seen as a rep of CP, and thus indirectly the sites that advertise with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Allyson Jaffrey Schulman seems to have more conflicts on interest than the other board members I previously mentioned. Her business is not to further the needs of poker players, she is there to further the business of Card Player. Lets be honest, without the online poker room industry Card Player loses over 3/4's of its advertising revenue, at this point it's operations may be in jeopardy (I don't claim to have insider knowledge, my statement is only an assumption based on my extensive knowledge of the publishing and poker industries). Her statements and articles to date make her appear to be a bad person to represent the PPA, she is taking a myopic approach to the issue which will backfire in the eyes of congressmen. To borrow a broken campaign promise, we need a uniter not a divider - Allyson Jaffrey Schulman comes across as the ultimate divider for this cause. Now this doesnt mean that her intentions are not good, nor does it mean I dislike her or her opinions; but it does mean her unique position does not make her the proper representative of the Poker PLAYERS Organization. If the PPA choses to change it's name to the Online Poker Room Lobbying Organization and change its mission to protecting the rights of Online Poker Rooms to operate in the USA then she would make an ideal board member, her mission would therefore match perfectly. As it currently stands, I see a conflict of interest. This is my opinion, hopefully my opinion will be shared by others.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

TT, I totally understand what you're saying, but it's a little bit of a catch 22 I think.

I'm not a big fan of the Shulman's, but even so, Allyn has her livelihood on the line here. Would you rather have someone fighting for you who's a recreational $1/2 NL player, or someone who's livelihood is on the line?

Cardplayer makes most of it's money through affiliate income. They've made a ton of money, thus, they have a ton of money to put towards the PPA. I don't know that they are doing that, but I would suspect they are.

I think the reality of the situation is this. It's going to take a TON of money to get a poker carve out. Alfonse D'Amato doesn't work for cheap.

Thus, the fight for poker is going to have to be done by a small group of companies who have a lot of funds. Those would be the Cardplayer, Pokerstars, etc of the world.

If we want poker to be legal, I think that's how it's going to have to be. Complaining about the PPA "not being represented by the players" is wasted effort IMO.

The goal is the same...correct?

I don't think it's feasible for a "group" soley made up of players to organize and be as effective as the PPA has been.

a 160,000 member group trying to be controlled by 160,000 people is just a mess.

Fortune 500 companies don't operate that way. Everyone may have a vote, but the people with the biggest investment have the biggest say so. That's how the PPA is operating it appears, and I have no problem with that. I think its the only way it will work.

Additionally, as I've pointed out before, it sadly seems that people aren't going to be happy with the PPA no matter what.

They've made great strides, but people will still complain. "I don't like this board member", "they aren't doing enough at the state level", "D'Amato is a bum", etc, etc.

This is the reason no poker organization could survive in the past. Hopefully, the PPA will keep getting the funding to continue and the peanut gallory will fade away.